[c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
All, FYI, yet another occurrence of Cisco TAC coming to the conclusion that yes it does not work, and no, they dont have to fix it, because they have decided that it is not supported. Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect product features to interoperate unless clearly stated that they may not? Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont support? Joe CSCtx75955 Bug Details Shaping does not work on port-channel interfaces on ISR, ISR G2 and 7200 Symptom: Traffic shaping doesn't work on port-channel interfaces and sub-interfaces on software-based routers, such as ISR, ISR G2 or Cisco 7200. Conditions: It was observed in IOS 15.1(4)M3a, but this defect is probably present in all IOS versions. Workaround: None ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
Hi, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont support? But they *do* deliver results. Documentation gets updated all the time, documenting what features are missing or do not work on rainy tuesdays. gert still pissed about the MPLS static crossconnect thing on SXI -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpJm4DIkkOVU.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont support? But they *do* deliver results. Documentation gets updated all the time, documenting what features are missing or do not work on rainy tuesdays. gert still pissed about the MPLS static crossconnect thing on SXI Documentation that a feature is wont-fix unsupported dated after the case was opened is inadmissible. Their TAC costs must be absurdly smaller than their engineer costs, the amount of time they waste on this nonsense. Of all things Cisco is good at, pissing of its users ranks #1 on the list. Joe ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
Of all things Cisco is good at, pissing of its users ranks #1 on the list. I'm hoping that their move to concentrate on switching and core business rather than eg digital cameras (what were they thinking with that? Did John Chambers ask his PA to buy a flip video and it was misheard?) will start to fix this Alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
Hi, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:10:55AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: Of all things Cisco is good at, pissing of its users ranks #1 on the list. *That* seems to be what they really mastered in the last 10 years. (Now what I'm not sure is what the piss-of-customers-BU is competing with, seeems I don't understand the grand master plan yet) gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpLAhXKyjYWf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote: (Now what I'm not sure is what the piss-of-customers-BU is competing with, seeems I don't understand the grand master plan yet) JTAC? :P --Daniel. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic shaping does not work (and is not supported) on Port-Channel interfaces on Software based routers
On 10/10/12 15:48, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05:50AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: Is it an unreasonable expectation to expect TAC support contracts to deliver results and resolutions instead of yet another thing we wont support? But they *do* deliver results. Documentation gets updated all the time, documenting what features are missing or do not work on rainy tuesdays. Yes indeed. On *some* occasions, they even: a) Update all extant versions of a doc with a (serious) caveat b) Don't change the last updated time on the doc c) Deny that it's a bug, because see, it's documented We've caught them doing this a couple of times. I think it's a mixture of incompetence and left hand, meet right hand rather than outright lying. But it still INFURIATES me. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
